Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: Congressman John Murtha gets it right

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=jets5ever] Intelligence often conflicts with other intel, consensus is usually never acheived and the closest thing to a consensus about the intel that existed when the decision was made supported the way Bush perceived the threat of Saddam's WMD. [/QUOTE]

    Intelligence doesn't dictate decision making. The decision makers made their decision using the intel but at the end of the day it was their bad decision that was made.

    Put it another way basically everyone in this forum (but you) wanted Chad Pennington to be the QB of the NYJ for the rest of the decade. Terry signed him now he's hurt again. TB didn't necessarily know he was gonna sign a player who would be hurt and couldn't cut for 10 years but he did it anyway and it's the type of decision that ends careers. It was in retrospect a very bad move, possibly a move he should be fired for.

    I don't fault Bush for his bad intel. I fault him for his bad decision. Maybe it was the obvious choice, maybe it made so much sense at the time but the bottom line is he made a decision, it backfired horribly and it's on his head, not the CIA or Clinton or anyone else. Bush sent this nation to a war it couldn't win. This is his legacy.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Intelligence doesn't dictate decision making. The decision makers made their decision using the intel but at the end of the day it was their bad decision that was made.

    Put it another way basically everyone in this forum (but you) wanted Chad Pennington to be the QB of the NYJ for the rest of the decade. Terry signed him now he's hurt again. TB didn't necessarily know he was gonna sign a player who would be hurt and couldn't cut for 10 years but he did it anyway and it's the type of decision that ends careers. It was in retrospect a very bad move, possibly a move he should be fired for.

    I don't fault Bush for his bad intel. I fault him for his bad decision. Maybe it was the obvious choice, maybe it made so much sense at the time but the bottom line is he made a decision, it backfired horribly and it's on his head, not the CIA or Clinton or anyone else. Bush sent this nation to a war it couldn't win. This is his legacy.[/QUOTE]

    Fine, that is a legitimate criticism. That is not the same as saying he lied about intel or WMD. That's the difference, that's my point.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE][B]It has been investigated, you fail to ackowledge that.[/B][/QUOTE]

    When? Who did the investigation? What questions were they tring to answer?

    [QUOTE][B]So, let me understand correctly...people can call Bush a liar all they want, that's "speaking your mind." But when Bush defends himself, he's "silencing" others amd "smearing" them. Got it. Works out pretty well for the Dems, huh? Calling Bush a liar isn't smearing him? [/B] [/QUOTE]

    People are raising questions whether Bush used some intelligence (which he knew was not strong) and discounted the intelligence against going to war on purpose to build the case for the war. There are plenty of reasons why people are asking these questions. The pretenses for going to war including Saddam's nuclear capabilities, possession of stockpiles of biological agents, his connection to 9/11 and AQ were all wrong. The reasons for this war changed moment to moment as each one prior was found to be the case. Did we have to go to war and were other viable options explored? It seems to many of us that we did not in both cases.
    In addition there is no denying that the members of this administration had there eyes on Iraq as early as 1998 as noted by their signing of the PNAC and pressure on Clinton to invade Iraq in the late 1990s. There is also evidence that as soon as Sept 12 2001, Bush and co were seeking/hoping for an Iraq/9-11 connection. Why? Did Bush prey upon the publics vulnerability after 9/11 to scare them into thinking that Iraq could inflict a similar or greater catstrophe that AQ did? These are all legitimate questions and not simply politics. There is some basis to these questioning of the administrations motives and agenda and how they presented it to the public.

    Questioning a persons patriotism by saying that if he speaks out against the war or raises questions about the reasons why we went to war hurts our troops or gives aid to the enemy is baseless. There is no way to prove this one way or another. When the president and vp get up and say this as if it is fact they are only attacking the mans patriotism and character. There is no evidence that Iraqi rebels are emboldened by our politics at home. They are going to come after us nomattter what our politicians say or what the public thinks of the war so long as we have a presence in their country.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE][B]I am not questioning Murtha patriotism, nor can you prove such[/B][/QUOTE]

    Of course you are. You say:

    [B]"you would figure after serving in Vietnam he realizes this does nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy and demoralizes the troops-yet it is his complete hypocrisy" [/B]

    You are accusing him demoralizing the troops and giving aid to the enemy. If thats not an attack on ones patriotism i dont know what is.

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]When? Who did the investigation? What questions were they tring to answer?



    People are raising questions whether Bush used some intelligence (which he knew was not strong) and discounted the intelligence against going to war on purpose to build the case for the war. There are plenty of reasons why people are asking these questions. The pretenses for going to war including Saddam's nuclear capabilities, possession of stockpiles of biological agents, his connection to 9/11 and AQ were all wrong. The reasons for this war changed moment to moment as each one prior was found to be the case. Did we have to go to war and were other viable options explored? It seems to many of us that we did not in both cases.
    In addition there is no denying that the members of this administration had there eyes on Iraq as early as 1998 as noted by their signing of the PNAC and pressure on Clinton to invade Iraq in the late 1990s. There is also evidence that as soon as Sept 12 2001, Bush and co were seeking/hoping for an Iraq/9-11 connection. Why? Did Bush prey upon the publics vulnerability after 9/11 to scare them into thinking that Iraq could inflict a similar or greater catstrophe that AQ did? These are all legitimate questions and not simply politics. There is some basis to these questioning of the administrations motives and agenda and how they presented it to the public.

    Questioning a persons patriotism by saying that if he speaks out against the war or raises questions about the reasons why we went to war hurts our troops or gives aid to the enemy is baseless. There is no way to prove this one way or another. When the president and vp get up and say this as if it is fact they are only attacking the mans patriotism and character. There is no evidence that Iraqi rebels are emboldened by our politics at home. They are going to come after us nomattter what our politicians say or what the public thinks of the war so long as we have a presence in their country.[/QUOTE]

    Iraq's involvement in 9-11 was NEVER stated as a reason for this war. Also, there [I]are[/I] Iraq-AQ ties, sorry. The reasons have not changed moment to moment, sorry. You are simply wrong - this is current re-writing of history the left is sadly trying to peddle these days. Also, the WOT and Iraq specifically are much bigger and broader than merely a reaction to 9-11. Bush was clear about this. The attitude that terrorism is confined to 9-11 or that everything done in the WOT has to be tied to 9-11 is foollish, small-picture thinking, the type of which brought about 9-11 in the first place. Bush's key insight was to realize that terrorism isn't a bunch of separate, isolated criminal acts, but rather something bigger than required a different approach.

    The CIA was convinced Saddam did have stockpiles of WMD. At the very least, they were convinced that he had WMD that weren't accounted for. Again, Bush though the risks of inaction were worse that the risks of action, and he made his choice. WMD can be discarded and produced anew, if one retains the componentry, know-how and production facilities, all of which Saddam had. Have you tried to objectively read the Duelfer and Kay reports in their entirety? Clearly, Saddam's interest in WMD was more than theoretical. If you want to stop someone from growing potatoes, you don't only make them destroy their current crop, you burn their farm down as well. What's the point of destroying a stockpile of potatoes, if the farmer still has arable land, potatoe seeds and knowledgable farmers on hand afterwards?

    Being wrong about the WMD is not the same as knowing there were no WMD beforehand and still saying there were anyway. If you are suggesting that Bush knew something that no one else knew and lied, than further dicussion is fruitless, since you are not arguing from principle and I refuse to discuss things with people who don't argue from principle.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 11-18-2005 at 03:41 PM.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE][B]If you want to stop someone from growing potatoes, you don't only make them destroy their current crop, you burn their farm down as well.[/B][/QUOTE]

    With this analogy you have demonstrated the problem as well as anyone. If you burn down the farm you create problems for more than just the farmer. Those who depend on the farm for food now have none. Those who worked on the farm are now out of a job. The soil that you destroyed now has to wait 1-2 years before it can be used again. Someone has to now rebuild the farm all over again. The next farmer may be just as bad or worse than the one you drive out of town.

    Get it!
    Burning the farm is not the solution.It creates more problem than you would care for. You stop the guy from growing potatoes by destroying his current crop and depriving him of the means to grow more potatoes by preventing him from buying more, preventing him from getting more equipment needed to grow them. Eventually someone else will take over the farm.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]With this analogy you have demonstrated the problem as well as anyone. If you burn down the farm you create problems for more than just the farmer. Those who depend on the farm for food now have none. Those who worked on the farm are now out of a job. The soil that you destroyed now has to wait 1-2 years before it can be used again. Someone has to now rebuild the farm all over again. The next farmer may be just as bad or worse than the one you drive out of town.

    Get it!
    Burning the farm is not the solution.It creates more problem than you would care for. You stop the guy from growing potatoes by destroying his current crop and depriving him of the means to grow more potatoes by preventing him from buying more, preventing him from getting more equipment needed to grow them. Eventually someone else will take over the farm.[/QUOTE]

    Really, the farmers' two sons weren't going to take over? Also, I'm confused, who depended on WMD for jobs? Are you saying you're upset that the WMD workers are now out of jobs? ;)

    Full Disclosure - it's Friday afternoon and I've had about 4 cups of coffee today and may not be making any sense! :(

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Of course you are. You say:

    [B]"you would figure after serving in Vietnam he realizes this does nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy and demoralizes the troops-yet it is his complete hypocrisy" [/B]

    You are accusing him demoralizing the troops and giving aid to the enemy. If thats not an attack on ones patriotism i dont know what is.[/QUOTE]

    I know as a liberal the waters get murky when facts are brought to the table but that is a fact.......


    Attacking his service record...well, that's a different story...

  9. #29
    [QUOTE][B]Iraq's involvement in 9-11 was NEVER stated as a reason for this war[/B]. [/QUOTE]

    Iraq was continuously tied to 9-11 by the entire administration. They couldnt talk about Iraq w/o mentiioning 9-11. The imagery painted by Cheney and Rice of "mushroom clouds" and appocolyptic world when talking about Iraq was preying on the peoples fears after 9-11. Please , you are trying to defend something that is so obviously wrong.

    [QUOTE][B]there are Iraq-AQ ties, sorry.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Im not going to explain this again. There were no ties. No matter how many times you say it , it is simply not true. No collaberation between Saddam and AQ. Period. Stephen Hayes and the Right Wing Propoganda Machine has made these claims w/o any reputable sources to corroborate their claims.

    [QUOTE][B]the WOT and Iraq specifically are much bigger and broader than merely a reaction to 9-11.[/B][/QUOTE]

    The WOT is nothing but a reaction to 9-11. It is a bad joke. Just like the war on drugs and the Cold War. Terror can not be defeated by the military . It is an idea. You can not defeat ideology with guns just like you cannot form a democracy at gunpoint. Iraq has nothing to do with a so called WOT or 9/11. Yes we must defend ourselves, but taking the offensive with pre-emptive wars is no solution.

    [QUOTE] [B]Clearly, Saddam's interest in WMD was more than theoretical.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Maybe so, but that doesnt constitute a reason to go to war. There were other solutions. I said it before , but youu refuse to recognize, how much of a last resort war is. Asking our men to place their lives on the line is no small matter. War is hell. Before we ask our boys to make the ultimate sacrifice, lets make sure there is no other way. Clearly, invading Iraq was not the only way to control Saddam. Whether or not he was looking for WMDs, Saddam was well controlled.

    [QUOTE][B]If you are suggesting that Bush knew something that no one else knew and lied,[/B][/QUOTE]

    No, I am suggesting that Bush and his men long wanted to invad Iraq and topple Saddam, even prior to the events of 9-11 (this is not a subject of debate, look at the PNAC and who signed the pact). I am also suggesting that bush cherry picked the intelligence that was available and trumped up some dubious intelligence to make his case. I am also suggesting that Bush preyed upon the public's fear after 9-11 and built his case with that in mind.

    Until the matter is investigated by a biparytisan committee (and contrary to what you wrote, these specific questions have [U]not[/U] been investigated) the majority of Americans and I will not feel comfortable with the reasons given for invding Iraq

  10. #30
    [QUOTE][B]I know as a liberal the waters get murky when facts are brought to the table but that is a fact.......[/B][/QUOTE]

    Whats a fact? Questioning the war brings aid and comfort to the enemy while endangering our troops. That is definitely not a fact. Im curious as to how you will prove this. Was there a study that proved this to be true or are you relying on some coached answers by republican supporting Iraqi vets to prove this. Maybe you can use your own war experiece to reflect on this!

  11. #31
    [QUOTE][B]Really, the farmers' two sons weren't going to take over? Also, I'm confused, who depended on WMD for jobs? Are you saying you're upset that the WMD workers are now out of jobs? [/B] [/QUOTE]

    Very cute. All Im saying is that invading and destroying a country, dividing its people, is not the only way to controll a dictator. Im also saying becareful, the next guy may be worse than the one you took out. America has had a bad record in terms of putting people in power.

  12. #32
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Whats a fact? Questioning the war brings aid and comfort to the enemy while endangering our troops. That is definitely not a fact. Im curious as to how you will prove this. Was there a study that proved this to be true or are you relying on some coached answers by republican supporting Iraqi vets to prove this. Maybe you can use your own war experiece to reflect on this![/QUOTE]


    Your complete lack of the facts is more comical by the minutes...let's forget about what comes from the mouths of people who fought their (Americans that is)....I guess all that sh!t about propoganda like Hanoi Hannah was made up...


    and as far as questioning someone's patriotism it is comical coming from a hypocrite such as yourself...what was it you previously said about Bob Dole and his medals for service??
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 11-18-2005 at 04:51 PM.

  13. #33
    Wow there is some great info.

    [B]a criminal justice class I took at St. John's concentrated on security measures for a while...one fascinating topic was stadium\arena security, specifically at rock concerts....the professor, who worked as the security supervisor at Nassua Collessium in the 80's- brought out the point that, no matter how many security guards they had on stage during a concert, unless they had agents out in the crowd dispersing and breaking up fights\potential hazards before they got to the stage it was a losing battle...[/QUOTE][/B]

  14. #34
    [QUOTE][B]let's forget about what comes from the mouths of people who fought their (Americans that is)....I guess all that sh!t about propoganda like Hanoi Hannah was made up...[/B][/QUOTE]


    I spoke to plenty of people who served in war who agree with me CBNY. The enemy doesnt need to hear our politics at home in order to be enabled or encouraged. They have eough drive and motivation to carry out their actions based on their beliefs. They dont need our dissent at home for encouragement. This is what I heard from the other officers (those who actually saw combat)who served with me as well as from the hundreds of vets i talk to each day.

    But whether a war veteran's opinion sides with me or you, it is certainly not a FACT. Its an opinion. FACTS are irrefutable. They are tested , studied, and proven. A veterans opinion is not.

  15. #35
    Here you go. The House voted down the movement to immediately bring the troops home 403-3. [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176105,00.html[/url]

    All I have to say on this topic is that if we cut and run from Iraq without allowing the proper foundation to form in that country, we will not only be worse off than before the war, but there will be a chain reaction of drastic proportions throughout the world.

    Why cant people think logically anymore. I mean what do people really think is going to happen if we just up and pull out of Iraq? What,, will the entire middle east all of a sudden be buddy buddy with us and Al Qaeda just dismantle and say thank you. Get real, they will see it as a victory against the great evil and use if for fuel to pursue thier agenda.

    The Day is coming in this country when our political infighting errupts into something much, much worse. Let me just say Jefferson will be proven right.

  16. #36
    If you think that our troops in Iraq are going to be undermined or deterred from doing their job because of what politicians on either side say in congress, then i think we are under estimating the determination and courage of our troops....They are our best and finest and if they let politicans or anyone else effect their mission or morale, i would be very surprised....I believe we do need a serious debate on what we do next in Iraq but the rhetoric on both sides has gotten out of control....I did not agree with going to war but neither do i believe the President lied to get us there, I think he honestly believed he was doing the right thing....Cheney on the other hand, i do not have the same feelings for, i believe he and the neo-cons have had Iraq in their sights for years and helped push Bush to this decision....Regardless of all that now, we need the country to come together and formulate a plan to go forward, staying the course is just an option in my opinion....













    if
    Last edited by jetsmetsrangers; 11-19-2005 at 04:49 PM.

  17. #37
    I read somewhere that on the house of the senate floor, one of the marine commanders in the field asked one of the senators to send Murtha a message.

    It was "Cowards cut and run, Marines don't".

    And I couldn't agree more!

    He turned his back on his military brethren for a partison political agenda that gives aid to the enemy for the sole purpose of political gain. Pure Slime!

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=jetsmetsrangers]If you think that our troops in Iraq are going to be undermined or deterred from doing their job because of what politicians on either side say in congress, then i think we are under estimating the determination and courage of our troops....[/QUOTE]

    It is not a question of the courage of our troops.

    Right now terrorists have two huge allies in this country. The media, and the Democrats.

    Both are trying to turn public opinion against the war in an effort to make the administration look bad so that the democrats can regain power.

    Any terrorist paying attention to what is going on in this country has there resolve strengthened by the knowledge that the more carniage they cause, the more Democrats and Journalists will come to there aid in an effort to convince the country to surrender.

    It was never a question of causing our troops to loose there courage. It is a question of not sh!tting all over them and strengthening the people they fight!

  19. #39
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=sarge]It is not a question of the courage of our troops.

    Right now terrorists have two huge allies in this country. The media, and the Democrats.

    Both are trying to turn public opinion against the war in an effort to make the administration look bad so that the democrats can regain power.

    Any terrorist paying attention to what is going on in this country has there resolve strengthened by the knowledge that the more carniage they cause, the more Democrats and Journalists will come to there aid in an effort to convince the country to surrender.

    It was never a question of causing our troops to loose there courage. It is a question of not sh!tting all over them and strengthening the people they fight![/QUOTE]


    Amen...A-freaking-men!

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Amen...A-freaking-men![/QUOTE]
    Jets5ever, I agree that many democrats use this as a political issue just as republicans use 911 as a political benefit...My feeling is that although there has been progress over in Iraq, that has been under reported, there has also been many mistakes in the prosecution of this war and as americans we do have the right to question whether this war is being fought the best way to protect our troops without being called slime or terrorist loving Libs and the like........I care as much about our kids over there as much as anyone and the people who use this for strictly political gains are worthless, but to blindly not see any problems, with the way the war has been waged and not allow true dissent in this country by smearing anyone against the war is equally disturbing.....I know you yourself have stated that there have been problems with the war and i am sure you would want the best plans put forth in this effort.
    Last edited by jetsmetsrangers; 11-20-2005 at 07:15 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us